"Reflections on Little Rock"

irishrose · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: "Reflections on Little Rock"

Arendt raises some compelling considerations on the U.S.’s civil rights history. Dividing the country into the largely accepted trinity of political, social and private realms, she addresses the desegregation of public schools. She notes that the Supreme Court was only able to address desegregation because of state laws that mandated segregation. It is only in this legal realm where the federal government could legitimately reach. Yet in addressing state laws of segregation, the federal government invaded the social realm, enforcing desegregation largely against social custom and opinion. For Arendt then, the legal disestablishment of segregation was warranted and, more so, essential to ensure the life of the republic, while the legally-enforced disestablishment of social segregation was unfounded. “For the crucial point to remember is that it is not the social custom of segregation that is unconstitutional, but its legal enforcement” (202) [emphasis original].

Arendt illustrates her argument with regard to desegregation and the political/social realm by addressing anti-miscegenation laws, which were not overruled by the Civil Rights bill at that time. She argues that the “right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right” and paramount to segregation laws regarding buses, hotels, amusement and schools, or even political discrimination like the right to vote. In not striking down state anti-miscegenation laws, the Supreme Court never addressed what Arendt felt was a more profound violation of the “inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” It’s a solid argument, which makes her conclusion all the more compelling. She pointedly adds that “had the Court ruled the antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional, it would hardly have felt compelled to encourage, let alone enforce, mixed marriages” (203). At first blush I accepted this outright, and it was eye-opening. And, though it still gives pause, I think it’s important to note that enforcing miscegenation would be an encroachment of the government on the private realm, while enforcing desegregation is an encroachment on the social realm. And while that doesn’t invalidate the example, it does complicate it.

The bulk of Arendt’s essay focuses in various ways on the distinction between social discrimination and the legal enforcement of such discrimination. Arendt names equality as the “innermost principle” to the political realm, and goes on to name discrimination as the innermost principle to the social realm. She argues that “people belong to certain groups whose very identifiability demands that they discriminate against other groups in the same domain,” and urges that “without discrimination of some sort, society would simply cease to exist and very important possibilities of free association and group formation would disappear” (205). Her argument evolves to address the threat that conformism, as a result of the total elimination of discrimination, would have on a republic with such an “extraordinary heterogeneity of its population.” Thus, she argues, “the moment social discrimination is legally abolished, the freedom of society is violated” (209). This argument, again, is very persuasive. And while Arendt’s theoretical discussion holds up for me, I’m having some problems with her examples.

For instance, in dividing the social and political realm, Arendt gives two specific examples. She mentions “restricted” country resorts that discriminated based on race and ethnicity, arguing that such practices are “only an extension of the right to free association.” She adds that this would not apply to theaters and museums “where people obviously do not congregate for the purpose of associating with each other.” She also declares the use of buses, railroad cars, and hotels and restaurants in business districts “another matter.” So she is drawing a distinction between services for entertainment or amusement—which justifiably discriminate as a practice of the “right to free association”—and “public services that everyone needs in order to pursue his business and lead his life”—wherein discrimination would violate the constitutional right to the “pursuit of happiness.” In the margins I wrote: that’s some nasty gray area, and I think that holds up. How does a country form legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate in business enterprises, but not in entertainment enterprises? And I submit to you, how would you label the Marriot Marquis Times Square, located in the heart of the theater district in New York City? I know I’ve personally stayed there both for business and pleasure.

As another example, Arendt, in her thoroughness, predicts the rebuttal that the legal enforcement of desegregation addressed the disparity in white and black schools, which surely is a constitutional (i.e. political) issue of equal opportunity. She argues that if equal opportunity were the issue then parents should have addressed the conditions of the school and not segregation itself. However, as I recall, that was very specifically addressed in the legal consideration of desegregation. And, as was determined, separate but equal was decided to not only be unconstitutional but impossible to attain. (It’s been ages since I’ve read Brown v. Board, so don’t quote me on any of this.) Though, in its entirety, Arendt’s argument still holds some weight. Even if desegregation were imperative to address on a social level, it was relatively distasteful to thrust the primary responsibility of addressing desegregation on the nation’s children.

Oddly enough, I think the bulk of Arendt’s arguments are sound. But when it comes to applying them to her examples, the examples don’t always seem to hold up.

You know what’s most alarming, in a good way, about Arendt’s writing, although I addressed here a significant part of her discussion regarding desegregation, there are a number of elements of this essay that I never touched on. Some of those elements, mentioned almost as asides, deal with this essay in only a nominal way, and yet are interesting and could be explored in their own right.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject:

I haven't completed this chapter yet, but here are some thoughts along the way:

I wonder if Arendt ever made contact with the mother of the girl in the picture: what were the reasons that she allowed her daughter to endure such a terrific hardship? Arendt says she would never have done it with her daughter...forcing her children to solve the ugly problems of their parents. I suppose lots of African American parents were forced to make terrible decisions regarding the fate and safety of their children raised in the South. Sending the daughter to school, where she was not wanted, even loathed and hated, was a strange act of resistance: why didn't she accompany her daughter, along with her husband?

Arendt comments on the mob mentality at the scene: the very worst that young people can display, with hate, venom and threats of violence...and no one, or very few, were willing to confront this youthful mob- again, another example of parents abandoning their responsibility, allowing their children to run riot over the public commons. One set of parents abandon the protection of their child, another abandon their control of their child: both, its seems, miss the damage being done to all involved.

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: "Reflections on Little Rock"

irishrose · Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:42 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject:

I wondered whether it would be OK for me to add a posting here, as I have not read Arendt’s book.
Irishrose said to go for it, and Madarchitect would tell me if my posting should be redirected somewhere else.

1- Irishrose wrote:

“It probably was poor judgement, on everyone’s part, to force the issue in schools, making children the conscripted warriors of desegregation.”
This is a good point. For those who are interested, I can recommend:

Common Ground: a Turbulent Decade in the lives of three American families, by J. Anthony Lucas.
The book won the Pullitzer Prize, and tells (in great detail, over the years), about what desegregation in three families meant in Boston in the 1970’s (one Anglo family, one Irish, one Black American).
This is if you are really motivated: over 600 pages in small print, (I confess I have yet to finish it, but I learnt a lot).

2- The next question for me would be: what about desegregation in schools in the XXIst century?
Once busing is no longer compulsory, there is, from what I have read, an (understandable) tendency to send
one’s kids to the local school, with people from your community, rather than mix with other groups in a different part of the city.

What I’d like to mention here is the point of view of an African American writer (more interesting, to me, than extrapolating about how one would think if one were a Black mother):

Losing the Race: self-sabotage in Black America, by John Macworther (my favourite non-fiction book about the U.S, ever).

The author advises Black parents to go the extra mile and send their children to schools where they will mix with non-black kids. His argument is pragmatic rather than idealistic: he argues that if Black kids do not mix with their white counterparts, they will be at a disadvantage in later in Corporate America, with mostly white co-workers.

What he writes was felt to be controversial: for example one might argue that the idea mentioned above may be true for middle class Blacks and of little interest for families who are living at or below the poverty line.

3- Next (here I may be straying from the original point): J. Macworther argues against positive discrimination, for a reason that I had long suspected might be true:

In the context of the US (France would be very different here), most (if not almost all) students who go to College come from the middle class, hence not from disadvantaged schools.
He says that as Black high school students he and his classmates somehow knew (although nothing to that effect was ever said to them) that a Black student didn’t need as high grades a white one to make it to College. Hence, he never stretched himself. Then, once he was at College, he went on doing just the required minimum for a few more years…

( This is something all teachers experience: many clever kids – mostly boys—have an uncanny ability to aim their efforts at the minimum acceptable grade, whether it be for Mrs Smith at their local school or for national final exams which will be graded by teachers from another city. If the target is 10/20, so be it. If on occasion the required grade is 14/20, they’ll get exactly 14, not 13 or 15.)

irishrose · Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject:

I'm glad you decided to jump in, Ophelia.

First on the two books you mentioned:

Ophelia · Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:26 am Post subject:

About MacWorther's book, I have checked the readers' comments at amazon, and found them really worth reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Race-Self-Sabotage-Black-America/dp/00609 35936/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197868183&sr=1-1

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:51 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:

Irishrose wrote:

irishrose · Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject:

Ophelia, I'm going to answer you in this new thread. I don't want to cut off this conversation, but I don't want to divert the topic of this thread.

irishrose · Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject:


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT